In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court declared as unconstitutional the bond conditions imposed by the Chhattisgarh State Forest Development Corporation under Rules 149(a) and 149(b) of the M.P. Rajya Van Vikas Nigam Limited Employees Service Regulation, 1984. The court described the rules as “unfair, oppressive, and unconstitutional,” emphasizing their violation of fundamental rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
The judgment was delivered by a division bench consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, following a petition filed by a group of employees challenging the mandatory bond requirements.
Background
The petitioners, 20 employees appointed as Assistant Project Rangers, had been required to undergo a six-month training program as a condition of their employment. The contentious bond mandated that they serve the corporation for a minimum of five years after training or repay:
1. All training-related expenses.
2. Salaries and allowances paid during the bond period.
3. Additional projected earnings for the remaining bond duration if they left prematurely.
Represented by Advocate Goutam Khetrapal, the petitioners argued that these conditions infringed upon their constitutional rights under Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19(g) (Right to Practice Any Profession), and 23(a) (Prohibition of Forced Labour).
The respondents, represented by Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur and Advocate Trivikram Nayak, defended the bond as a necessary measure to prevent employee attrition and financial losses.
Key Legal Issues
1. Fundamental Rights and Bond Agreements:
– The petitioners contended that the bond’s conditions were excessive and imposed undue economic coercion, violating Articles 14, 19, and 23 of the Constitution.
2. Economic Coercion and Unequal Bargaining Power:
– The court observed that the bond terms disproportionately favored the corporation, reflecting an imbalance of power that left employees with no real choice.
3. Proportionality of Conditions:
– While the court acknowledged the corporation’s right to recover training expenses, it deemed the inclusion of salaries and projected earnings an unreasonable burden.
Court’s Observations and Judgment
Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, authoring the judgment, emphasized the constitutional violations inherent in the bond. The court noted:
– “Unfair and Oppressive Provisions”: The bond unfairly demanded employees repay not only training costs but also earnings and projected income for up to five years. This was deemed excessive and exploitative.
– Violation of Equality and Freedom: The court stated, “The bond conditions are unfair, unconscionable, oppressive, and unconstitutional, against the principles of distributive justice and public policy, and offending Article 14 of the Constitution.”
– Reasonable Recovery Allowed: The court clarified that while recovering actual training expenses was justifiable, extending liability to salaries and future earnings breached principles of fairness and equality.
In light of these findings, the court struck down Rules 149(a) and 149(b), declaring them ultra vires and prohibiting their enforcement. The judgment allowed the corporation to frame revised policies to recover legitimate expenses without violating constitutional rights.
Party and Case Details
– Case Title: Ranveer Singh & Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
– Case Number: WPS No. 4200 of 2024
– Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
– Petitioners’ Counsel: Advocate Goutam Khetrapal
– Respondents’ Counsel: Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur and Advocate Trivikram Nayak
